From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: bug#26936: grub_cmd_set_date test sometimes fail Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 15:30:10 -0400 Message-ID: <20170623193010.GA23820@jasmine.lan> References: <87vap2iqc5.fsf@gmail.com> <871sr2ngp5.fsf@inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55409) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dOUIN-0006ET-Ok for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 15:31:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dOUIJ-0008FC-NL for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 15:31:07 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:60327) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dOUIJ-0008Ew-7e for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 15:31:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dOUII-0001M8-Nj for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 15:31:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <871sr2ngp5.fsf@inria.fr> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: 26936@debbugs.gnu.org --9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 12:54:46AM +0200, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > FAIL: grub_cmd_set_date =20 [...] > All in all, I=E2=80=99m tempted to think this has to do with running the = tests > in parallel. >=20 > As a stop-gap measure, I=E2=80=99ve committed a change to run tests > sequentially. With this =E2=80=9Cguix build grub --rounds=3D5=E2=80=9D p= asses for on my > x86_64 laptop. Let=E2=80=99s reopen the bug if we find that=E2=80=99s no= t enough. This test just failed for me on x86_64, even with #:parallel-tests? #f. So, perhaps it's not an inter-test race, or perhaps the tests are still running in parallel, or some other thing. --9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAllNbD0ACgkQJkb6MLrK fwhSSBAAw/Qv/O3jn8khYsaewlMZ/B0uP9eIHoNuNI+TSBJqKTx2+vR8YZIC4Lke lyJYeh6wKB5RdOl7tKEWYBZbUODOsXI6y+hvzT0ei3PqjbY0ZEQpZxF0vGwFVDvp LKeuLpYuS2Zd3lqAot0o1CG9Y5p4VZYYeb946LWS0pogUxWGpZix8UkO8D+8B+rd VpSe1gmRVhXKuJV54kAr3/XrLBPRlH9UQBztwPANB8UCDks37Pi5qR/UPkXfh5ha XzTnmJinUMyMvGVOqqEwb3E/ESKSSMRx6wJWZRPLbcxwBPEPWGObDHXW2bqQRW4d XuNhIG4v6NnEHsvTMSjdz717RHMIq++3wkHbf2+wXp+lBotvSgMaOg6nZmHahhwp jytqwu5SSSz9TYctPH7UC6x4s8SRRs9n9/ny2pG53mdjtLEAsg0WhWRtRW4s0kjF kRkjvpJ4ai4qPPF626jLheHcCInhq5vtMvKdP8Sh5fJ4UcNm9NyJ+/q8iuyFiQqQ lJyYteCQwFNIxtT17MxDOxi7KSr6dcta8JL4M4UcJ1JVgmAAuStwR9Z1OzPHuWma VdQVqD5iPD4TE7cYcEKhysLC96eM0iob5HL7w/hTUBtH6cQX1/0PDvR6Jnm2CE3J Hw9znvDenh635OoNAKICB3gk3gTWxTnsExcAQwGXxmw7suo2FjA= =E3z9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR--